Intelligent Design flunked: Denyse O'Leary What exactly is the “design” part of “intelligent design”?

There are people who honestly think that Dembski would dare to deign to give a definition of the "design" inferred in "Intelligent Design"?
How silly.

And if it turns out that the human brain operates by regularity or chance, would Del Ratzsch then claim that humans are incapable of design?

Remember also that Dembski has defined design as "a process that selects between alternatives" (my paraphrase because I no longer have the reference). Some of you may recall a poster on UD who pointed out that this would empower a seive as a designer, and who promptly received heaps of abuse for it. It also includes NS as a design process.

And if it turns out that the human brain operates by regularity or chance, would Del Ratzsch then claim that humans are incapable of design?

Remember also that Dembski has defined design as “a process that selects between alternatives” (my paraphrase because I no longer have the reference).

— Nigel

Once ID proponents come to realize how flimsy the definition of ‘design’ as proposed by Intelligent Design really is, there will be no more ‘controversy’.

for then we should know the mind of God

John, that's a good point.

Fortunately for all of us, I think what Prof. Hawking had in mind was that people would find the complete theory through science, not wishful thinking.

A four-part process by which a designer forms a designed object: (1) A designer conceives a purpose or goal. (2) To accomplish that purpose, the designer forms a plan. (3) To execute the plan, the designer specifies building materials and assembly instructions. (4) The designer or some surrogate applies the assembly instructions to the building materials. What emerges is a designed object, and the designer is successful to the degree that the object fulfills the designer’s purpose.

Do ID proponents even familiarize themselves with what ID is all about or is it sufficient to them that it restores the proper role of Christ?

— PvM

John, that’s a good point.

Just think if they had hashed out all of this before they claimed to be able to teach ID in the science class?

"There is no compelling conceptual basis for any blanket prohibition in exploring applications or implications of the idea of supernatural design within the scientific context. Some design theories may be inapproriate in some instances, but that is perfectly consistent with others being in principle legitimate. It is, of course, perfectly possible that such attempts could end up wholly empty, but since every scientific research program faces at least that possibility, that hardly constitutes grounds for pre-emptive prohibitions." "(God-of-the-) Gap objections seem mistaken on all counts--conceptual, logical, empirical, and historical." -- from Nature, Design, and Science, c2001.

John, that’s a good point.

— Nigel D

How so? The concept of “Intelligent Design” only spreads among the religious, and does not lead to searching out, identifying, defining, or understanding design, and Hawking was talking about plain old materialistic science, not ID, possibly leading to a full understanding of the universe we exist in – “the mind of God” is, after Einstein, a metaphor for the rules of the universe; it has nothing to do with deities or actual minds.

— Poppers Ghost

But that’s not the kind of Del Ratzsch stuff y’all want to hear, is it? Only want to hear the parts that sound good to you.

— FL

It's all practical FL. Conceptual basis just means science cannot formally exclude the possibility. If you stick to precise definitions of natural and supernatural there is no problem. The supernatural is everything that CANNOT EVER be explored scientifically. The natural is everything else. Perhaps Del Ratzsch theological training was poor so he doesn't understand why those definitions are used. If you permit scientific testing of God under your theological views he is no longer omnipotent for one particular issue. And the second is that you are also then forced into having a God that exists in an ever shrinking sphere of influence. Every child with a good Lutheran education understands this.

The practical part comes in historically. The motivation to understand the universe is a common thread between modern scientists and religious scholars. In the past this common motivation lead people to both occupations simultaneously. The separation into philosophically distinct methods of inquiry came only after it was demonstrated that trying to explain the universe without using supernatural explanations would be fruitful. Particularly it was understood that those explanations were often a blunt instrument that inhibited creative thinking about the natural processes. In pure simplicity we tried for thousands of years to do science experiments with the supernatural as a possibility and realized it didn't work, which caused us to look at our underlying assumptions and precisely define what can and cannot be addressed scientifically.

Anyone else notice that FL has continued to conveniently refused to define “specified complexity” and “irreducible complexity”, as well as neglected to demonstrate how quantifying these two concepts can explain the “design” of organisms?

FL, like nearly every creobot who shows up here, is only a sniper. He excretes something dishonest from time to time, and then ignores all subsequent corrections and requests for an actual position. Maybe he doesn't quite grasp how his "efforts" look when people claim he cannot build a case and challenge him to prove them wrong, and he simply vanishes. Then shows up elsewhere with an unrelated dishonest quip he fails to support. What he's demonstrating is the core substance of creationism. That's all there is to it, folks. Make dishonest and misleading claims, then run.

Anyone else notice that FL has pasted a bit of text that says absolutely NOTHING to advance any case for anything, and added no commentary or explanation of his own? Looks like at least one creationist is acting on nothing but random impulses...

And speaking of random impulses, it seems the ID movement is now hiding behind a cover of pure fuzzwords. Some examples:

...set theoretic complement of the disjunction regularity-or-chance.

...robust, standard, agency-derived conception of design... (What "agency" are they talking about here? The CIA?)

This is the kind of pointy-haired word-salad we laugh at in the "Dilbert" comic strip. Call it "drivelectical immaterialism."

Popper's Ghost: Apparently John Kelly has never heard of a metaphor.

Popper's Ghost: The concept of "Intelligent Design" only spreads among the religious, and does not lead to searching out, identifying, defining, or understanding design, and Hawking was talking about plain old materialistic science, not ID, possibly leading to a full understanding of the universe we exist in -- "the mind of God" is, after Einstein, a metaphor for the rules of the universe; it has nothing to do with deities or actual minds.

Here is the beginning of a good definition of Design for you: Design is that which is directed by Something and not by Nothing.

As far as I can tell, ID is just bafflegab repeated ad infinitum.

What is design, specified complexity, and their other terms?

Until they can define their terms and come up with an objective way to measure them, it is just meaningless, gibberish.

From a thread yesterday, how many design units are in a grass plant? How many Specified Complexity units? How did one measure those? Is it reproducable by others in the field independently?

Even then, that doesn't get them too far. Evolution, RM + NS is a proficient designer. This is a known, empirically determined fact. Us, what is all around us, and all that came before was the result of evolution, natural processes acting over billions of years.

To prove that a supernatural entity rather than known natural processes were involved is to prove that god(s) exists. No one has been able to prove that in our entire civilized history. The quacks at DI aren't going to be the first.

They are destined to run around in their own, very small circles.

quoting Del Ratzsch: It is, of course, perfectly possible that such attempts could end up wholly empty, but since every scientific research program faces at least that possibility, that hardly constitutes grounds for pre-emptive prohibitions.”

— FL

Design is that which is directed by Something and not by Nothing.

I know that this is nit-picking, but ...

If these are the sort of definitions that they are considering for the word "design", how do they intend to distinguish "intelligent design"?

I know that this is nit-picking, but … If these are the sort of definitions that they are considering for the word “design”, how do they intend to distinguish “intelligent design”?

"Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory,"

By conflation and equivocation ID can now draw in the unexpecting Christian and pretend that it's ok, ID is all about science (wink wink) and many Christian become victim of this scientifically vacuous and theologically risky concept which exposes their faith to disproof, handing powerful weapons to the 'enemies of Christianity'.

Follies....

If Hawking was only talking about “plain old materialistic science”, then why does he make inference to the “mind of God”; even as a metaphor? Why does he address “everyone” and not just a few scientists, but both philosophers and scientists?

FL Wrote: quoting Del Ratzsch: It is, of course, perfectly possible that such attempts could end up wholly empty, but since every scientific research program faces at least that possibility, that hardly constitutes grounds for pre-emptive prohibitions.”

If this is pointing out the obvious, perhaps it is still best to state what is going on plainly: The only issue that informs the "definitions" of design that IDists come up with is their compulsion to define life as having been designed, contrary to established meanings of the term "design".

They know very little about design, and even less about life. What they know regarding the latter is that they are certain, due to their religious proclivities, that organisms are part of the set of "designed objects." But because life has none of the indications of design that humanly designed objects do (thus human-made designs are properly the basis for any definition of design--which IDists must deny to the bitter end), and has all of the indications predicted by non-teleological evolution, their "definitions" are extremely vague, and nearly always predicated on the false dilemma which assumes that if it didn't evolve (complete with cheesy "proofs" that life didn't "evolve naturally"), it was designed.

Thus, they distort science at the most basic level, at the understanding of words. Real, conventional definitions of design will not do, for the simple fact that they could never encompass life within their definitions of "the designed." Hence their assault is not only upon science, but more sinisterly, upon the manner in which humans understand and communicate ideas.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

And after all will the IDists explain how are you going to discern between regularity and chance and how is that different from NS? Aside, don't the IDist realize that insisting in ID by necessity requires a Designer and that will expose Designer/God to testing and possibly disproof? How moronic can these guys be?

FL, like nearly every creobot who shows up here, is only a sniper.

This is the kind of pointy-haired word-salad we laugh at in the “Dilbert” comic strip.

Aw, Glen, now you've confused me. Is it only life that G, er, the Designer designed, and not the sun and moon, stars and Earth? And as the bacterium is designed and its flagellum also is designed, is not the Earth designed and each lava flow, cross-bedded sandstone layer, and ice sheet? As further proof that the Earth is designed, I've observed outboard motors scattered around the Earth!

”However, if we discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just by a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason – for then we should know the mind of God.” A Brief History of Time (p.193).

[Discusses Einstein's metaphor and forms of unified theories. Then:] What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Is the unified theory so compelling that it brings about its own existence? Or does it need a creator, and, if so, does he have any other effect on the universe? And who created him? [Bold added.] [Leads into a discussion of the dispowerment of philosophy before concluding with the final paragraph.]

The idea that space and time may form a closed surface without boundary also has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe. With the success of scientific theories in describing events, most people have come to believe that God allows the universe to evolve according to a set of laws and does not intervene in the universe to break these laws. However, the laws do not tell us what the universe should have looked like when it started - it would still be up to God to wind up the clockwork and choose how to start it off. So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator? [Bold added.]

Throughout the 1970s I had been mainly studying black holes, but in 1981 my interest in questions about the origin and fate of the universe was reawakened when I attended a conference on cosmology organized by the Jesuits in the Vatican. The Catholic Church had made a bad mistake with Galileo when it tried to lay down the law on a question of science, declaring that the sun went round the earth. Now, centuries later, it had decided to invite a number of experts to advise it on cosmology. At the end of the conference the participants were granted an audience with the pope. He told us that it was all right to study the evolution of the universe after the big bang, but we should not inquire into the big bang itself because that was the moment of Creation and therefore the work of God. I was glad then that he did know the subject of the talk I had just given at the conference -- the possibility that space- time was finite but had no boundary, which means that it had no beginning, no moment of Creation. I had no desire to share the fate of Galileo, with whom I feel a strong sense of identity, partly because of the coincidence of having been born exactly 300 years after his death! [Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), pp. 115-16.] [Bold added.]

What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe began. This doesn't prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary. [Bold added.] [Stephen W. Hawking, Der Spiegel, 1989]

Intelligent Design is old, over 150 years old. It predates Darwin. They have accomplished nothing in that century and a half. Just going in circles.

FL:

FL, like nearly every creobot who shows up here, is only a sniper.

Then go back to the other thread and respond to all the responses I typed there, Flint. Or in the alternative, simply stop lying. Whatever's more convenient for you..... FL

FL:

FL, like nearly every creobot who shows up here, is only a sniper.

Then go back to the other thread and respond to all the responses I typed there, Flint. Or in the alternative, simply stop lying. Whatever's more convenient for you..... FL

Design is the “set theoretic complement of the disjunction regularity-or-chance."

Or in layman terms design is one or more of the following 1) the empty set 2) ignorance 3) a religious concept founded in the supernatural,

FL, the crux of Intelligent Design is that life is too complex to have evolved on its own, thus, life needs the assistance of a designer to evolve. However, given as how Intelligent Design proponents have not been able to demonstrate how this thesis can describe life better than Evolutionary Biology, or even how this thesis can promote science, nor have they demonstrated even the weakest urge to do science, Intelligent Design is rightfully held to be pseudoscience, especially since making an appeal to a designer without going into a rudimentary description of how the designer operates, is a form of appealing to supernatural causes.

At the risk of stating the obvious, neither regularity nor chance is a set. So applying the "set theoretic complement" operator to them makes no sense in the first place.

Henry

Henry J: At the risk of stating the obvious, neither regularity nor chance is a set. So applying the "set theoretic complement" operator to them makes no sense in the first place. Henry

PvM said: "The problem of course is that in the definition of ‘design’ there is nothing about ‘directed’ or ‘purpose’, which are unwarranted inferences."

Why are these unwarranted inferences?

I think that there's a point that is not acknowledged often enough. "Science" USED to include all sorts of supernatural stuff. The supernatural was excluded because, as a practical matter, it DOES NOT WORK. It leads to errors that cannot be corrected because they are not subject to testing; arguments about them cannot be resolved because supernatural theories are little more that unjustified opinion.

The type of science that Dembski wants was tried ... for thousands of years. It failed.

A snowflake is a design, but it is not 'designed' and it has no 'purpose'.

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

"I do not believe in a God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil."

Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

Maybe we need to look more closely into what we mean by "supernatural" in relation to science. Several studies have investigated the power of intercessory prayer, surely a supernatural subject. The investigators found, in Carl Hilton Jones' words, "as a practical matter, it DOES NOT WORK." But it was not excluded from scientific study for that reason.

In the Chronicle of Higher Education, Yonaton Fishman recently asked "Can Science Test Supernatural Worldviews?" He suggested a positive answer with a Bayesian approach. Personally, I think this requires too many assumptions, but the article is an interesting read.

The fundamental problem is that The Believers always have an out. Just as the Omphalists asserted that God created the evidence of an old earth already in place, it can be argued that God didn't answer the study subjects' prayers because he was miffed at being put to a test.

Perhaps the criterion is not supernatural per se, but capriciousness. Science can't study anything that is not regular or dependable. In any event. framing a more useful definition of the content of science would, I think, deny creationists and ID proponents the popular escape hatch that science refuses to "follow the evidence wherever it leads," and allow us to concentrate more effectively on their complete lack of evidence.

At the risk of stating the obvious, neither regularity nor chance is a set. So applying the “set theoretic complement” operator to them makes no sense in the first place.

Then go back to the other thread and respond to all the responses I typed there, Flint. Or in the alternative, simply stop lying. Whatever’s more convenient for you…..

but let’s just grant them the more generous interpretation that when they say design or regularity or chance are sets, they are referring to the set of all designed, regular or chance phenomena.

Do the real biologists ever have the feeling that the critters they are studying are truly amazing?

Regards

Eric

Eric Finn: Do the real biologists ever have the feeling that the critters they are studying are truly amazing? Regards Eric

Do the real biologists ever have the feeling that the critters they are studying are truly amazing?

Richard, what kinds of plants do you study, Richard?

Yes. It’s among the most important reasons why they study their critters in the first place, in fact.

Eric Finn: Now, purposeful features and behaviors do, to a layman, bring design into mind. It was designed for a purpose. Of course, to understand complicated matters does not diminish their beauty. However, what do you think is the best way to explain it to a person that does not have extensive knowledge of the issue? I do understand that once a hypothesis has strong supporting evidence, additional hypotheses do not add anything. Unfortunately, an impression of design does not go away by saying it is a wrong impression. For a layman, that is.

Stanton and Richard Simons,

This may be off-topic, but it seems to me that design is the default assumption whenever one encounters a purposeful structure. Sort of a natural reaction.
I do not endorse the Intelligent Design movement, but they seem to be clever in exploiting natural instincts.

I am sorry that my first post might have been sort of trolling, but I do seriously believe that many people are afraid of losing the beauty, if they accept explanations.

Of course, they want some explanation, but it is only a name. Magically, names (if you know them) allow you to control the phenomena even when you do not understand them.

Regards

Eric

Well, let's reframe this, then...
I try to get it across to a person that saying "An Omnipotent, Inscrutable "Designer" designed anglerfish," can not explain or even address the how's and why's we want to find out about anglerfish, at all.

what kinds of plants do you study, Richard?

“An Omnipotent, Inscrutable “Designer” designed anglerfish,” can not explain or even address the how’s and why’s we want to find out about anglerfish, at all.

My colleagues and I speculated at length on what the steroids were doing in the plants. There was, for example, a hint of a suggestion that male plant parts were higher in testosterone and female parts higher in estrogen. Possibilities we considered included that they might affect insect pests by interfering with their development, another was that they are just by-products of some pathway. The basic problem was that we had nothing like enough data to go on. However, at no time did anyone suggest anything to do with 'design'. In my experience, biologists rank it below astrology in topics to take seriously (after all, there is some evidence to support the idea that birthdate affects success in sports).

However, at no time did anyone suggest anything to do with ‘design’. In my experience, biologists rank it below astrology in topics to take seriously (after all, there is some evidence to support the idea that birthdate affects success in sports).

If Hawking was only talking about “plain old materialistic science”, then why does he make inference to the “mind of God”; even as a metaphor?

Why does he address “everyone” and not just a few scientists, but both philosophers and scientists?

Why does he say that finding the answer would be “the ultimate triumph of human reason”, and not the ultimate triumph of Science?

It is precisely his “Intelligent” mode of thinking, his search for PURPOSE, a point of origin, a whole containing all parts, that appears to guide his inquiry into the secrets of the universe.

He obviously believes that the universe can be understood through a “complete theory”, which is his GOD.

I don’t think you are going to say that Stephen Hawking isn’t a Scientist

but what you are saying is that his mode of thinking is religious and cannot lead to searching out, identifying, defining, or understanding design.

Does this type of reasoning require the belief in “God”? No, but it requires a belief in something that is greater than Nothing.

Here is the beginning of a good definition of Design for you: Design is that which is directed by Something and not by Nothing.

PG, it was a good point because it made me think about the issue from a different angle.

Plus, but less importantly, it provided us with an opportunity to enjoy Stephen Hawking’s prose.

And speaking of random impulses, it seems the ID movement is now hiding behind a cover of pure fuzzwords. Some examples: …set theoretic complement of the disjunction regularity-or-chance.

…robust, standard, agency-derived conception of design… (What “agency” are they talking about here? The CIA?) This is the kind of pointy-haired word-salad we laugh at in the “Dilbert” comic strip.

This is the kind of pointy-haired word-salad we laugh at in the “Dilbert” comic strip. You mean like this one…? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19PfUIovUaU

I was glad then that he did know the subject of the talk I had just given at the conference

At the risk of stating the obvious, neither regularity nor chance is a set. So applying the “set theoretic complement” operator to them makes no sense in the first place.

PvM said: “The problem of course is that in the definition of ‘design’ there is nothing about ‘directed’ or ‘purpose’, which are unwarranted inferences.” Why are these unwarranted inferences?

“Science” USED to include all sorts of supernatural stuff.

Maybe we need to look more closely into what we mean by “supernatural” in relation to science. Several studies have investigated the power of intercessory prayer, surely a supernatural subject.

The investigators found, in Carl Hilton Jones’ words, “as a practical matter, it DOES NOT WORK.”

In the Chronicle of Higher Education, Yonaton Fishman recently asked “Can Science Test Supernatural Worldviews?” He suggested a positive answer with a Bayesian approach.

We could nitpick this, but let’s just grant them the more generous interpretation that when they say design or regularity or chance are sets, they are referring to the set of all designed, regular or chance phenomena.

Now, purposeful features and behaviors do, to a layman, bring design into mind.

However, what do you think is the best way to explain it to a person that does not have extensive knowledge of the issue?

This may be off-topic, but it seems to me that design is the default assumption whenever one encounters a purposeful structure.

I do seriously believe that many people are afraid of losing the beauty, if they accept explanations.

raven said--

"Intelligent Design is old, over 150 years old. It predates Darwin. They have accomplished nothing in that century and a half. Just going in circles."

Actually, ID is now over 200 years old. And it did produce something-- it produced Darwin's theory. Paley's idea of "natural theology", studying the natural world instead of ancient texts, was one of the ideas that greatly influenced Charles Darwin. (Darwin was, after all, studying to be a minister.)

But the thing was, Charles Darwin pursued natural theology honestly, not fudging when the natural world turned out to be far different from the theologists' ideas of it. So there you have it. When people pursue natural theology honestly, what comes out is the theory of evolution. Now or 150 years ago makes no difference, except that the theory of evolution is now much more developed and supported.

If the IDers decide tomorrow to start doing real science and pursuing the data where they lead, even if they start from ID, they are going to end up recreating the modern theory of evolution. That's the way the world really is, so that's what they'll find, if they're honest.

But, of course, they're not honest, and they're getting paid to come up with "intelligent design," so they'll keep waffling and playing word games as long as the money rolls in.

Popper's Ghost:

Now, purposeful features and behaviors do, to a layman, bring design into mind.

a) You've assumed your conclusion, that features are purposeful. Functional is not the same as purposeful. b) You've conflated things at two different levels: behaviors may reflect the purposes of the organism, but its features, if purposeful, aren't the results of its own purposes.

In the Chronicle of Higher Education, Yonaton Fishman recently asked “Can Science Test Supernatural Worldviews?” He suggested a positive answer with a Bayesian approach.

astrology is much closer to science than ID, because it does make sort of predictions, even though the hypotheses are vague.

Hawking is a scientist. I don’t know what a Scientist is, but I do know what people who capitalize nouns like that are.

How does Ratzsch’s statement RATIONALLY lead to (3)?

When faced with the "explanatory filter", remember the "colour filter." Everyone knows there are three primary colours- red, green, blue. Check your TV screen phosphor dots. Therefore, blue is the set theoretic complement of red and green, and everything that isn't red or green, is blue. Therefore, lemons, canaries and oranges are all blue.

FL, the crux of Intelligent Design is that life is too complex to have evolved on its own, thus, life needs the assistance of a designer to evolve.

However, given as how Intelligent Design proponents have not been able to demonstrate how this thesis can describe life better than Evolutionary Biology, or even how this thesis can promote science, nor have they demonstrated even the weakest urge to do science, Intelligent Design is rightfully held to be pseudoscience, especially since making an appeal to a designer without going into a rudimentary description of how the designer operates, is a form of appealing to supernatural causes.

The concept of intelligent design entails a strong prediction that is readily falsifiable. In particular, the concept of intelligent design predicts that complex information, such as that encoded in a functioning genome, never arises from purely chemical or physical antecedents. Experience will show that only intelligent agency gives rise to functional information. All that is necessary to falsify the hypothesis of intelligent design is to show confirmed instances of purely physical or chemical antecedents producing such information. Stephen C. Meyer and Mark Hartwig, "A Note To Teachers", Of Pandas and People 2nd Edition

For example, "all men are mortal" is unfalsifiable, since no amount of observation could ever demonstrate its falsehood. "All men are immortal," by contrast, is falsifiable, by the presentation of just one dead man.

ID predicts that mutation and selection are not capable of producing irreducible complexity. Yet what is the limit of what it is capable of producing? Answering this question will require mutation of literally trillions of organisms, and selection schemes that would allow us to detect the few mutants that would have new characteristics. With most organisms, this is not possible. However, bacteria and yeast offer the possibility of such experiments. Dr. Seelke http://www.leaderu.com/aip/docs/seelke.html

THAT’s what ID is saying

you forgot to add:

this month.

Seelke is in the process of exploring that first step now.

and impossibility on the face of it, if you understood anything about the processes of genetic variation and selection to begin with.

so, exactly how does that become a "testable prediction" of ID?

However, bacteria and yeast offer the possibility of such experiments.

no, they really don't.

do you know why, FL?

FL writes "there is a real world gig in the Origin Of Life arena."

Perhaps. But that would be abiogenesis, not evolution. You know, FL, if you want people to treat you as a sincere creationist and not just as an ignorant troll, you should *never* refer to anything regarding abiogenesis as a disproof of evolution. Darwin specifically excluded the origin of life from his theory, and no one since has expanded the ToE to include abiogenesis. If they do, you'll know about it-- it'll make all the major daily papers. In the mean time, the ToE has nothing to say about the origin of life. So no statement about abiogenesis has any bearing on the theory of evolution.

I know you've been corrected on this point over and over again. You're wasting your own time and everyone else's trying to use abiogenesis to disprove evolution. Please stop.

FL wrote:

"ID predicts that mutation and selection are not capable of producing irreducible complexity. Yet what is the limit of what it is capable of producing? Answering this question will require mutation of literally trillions of organisms, and selection schemes that would allow us to detect the few mutants that would have new characteristics. With most organisms, this is not possible. However, bacteria and yeast offer the possibility of such experiments."

So how will these results be interpreted? If this guy tries for a few years and gets a few new things under the simple conditions used, is he going to conclude that random mutation and natural selection did indeed produce new information, or is he going to say that that proves that nothing more is possible? Of course the latter conclusion can never be justified by such an experiment while the former has been amply demonstrated already.

Look, the point is that no one is under under any obligation at all to reproduce evolution in the laboratory in order to demonstrate that it is possible. Many experiments already exist to show that it is possible and all of the evidence indicates that that is indeed what has occured. There is no theoretical limit to the amount of variation that can be produced by random mutations, so how could there be any limit to what such variation can produce? We already know the principles involved, as well as the relative and absolute rates of the many types of mutations and we have many examples of new genes and new information being produced that is selectively advantageous in a given environment. Nothing more is required, but then again, further evidence would be welcome.

Of course, if you demand replication of historical events as proof of their possibile occurance, fine. How about recreating the virgin birth or the resurection, etc. What's that, you say ID isn't religious? Really? OK fine. Do we have to recreate the big bang in order to demonstrate that that was possible as well? Do we have to make a black hole in the laboratory in order to demonstrate that they exist? I suppose you would like it if we could produce life from chemicals as well. When we do, will that convince you?

By the way, I am not "Stanton", but the guy does have a great name.

First of all, all a hypothesis has to do to avoid being “pseudoscientific” –(whatever that term means, Larry Laudan wrote that the term only functioned to do “emotive work” and ought to be dropped altogether by rational people)– is to be amenable the scientific method, especially falsifiability. In other words, I do NOT have to show that ID is a “better hypothesis” than evolution in order to show that ID is scientific If we go by the scientific method, a hypothesis CAN in fact be scientific, even if it comes in second best to a superior scientific hypothesis. (Wouldn’t you agree?)

Okay, there you go. Another long post, but your particular concerns got answered pretty much point by point. Do you see now why the 3-point ID hypothesis, win or lose, agree or disagree, is NOT “pseudoscience”, NOT “religion/religious”, but in fact genuinely scientific? Would you be willing to at least consider that possibility in light of all the above information?

Ichthyic: However, bacteria and yeast offer the possibility of such experiments. no, they really don't. do you know why, FL?

FL wrote:

"In other words, I do NOT have to show that ID is a “better hypothesis” than evolution in order to show that ID is scientific If we go by the scientific method, a hypothesis CAN in fact be scientific, even if it comes in second best to a superior scientific hypothesis. (Wouldn’t you agree?)"

Well, technically, yes. Old discredited hypotheses were perhaps once science. That is why they get superceded, because they make testable predictions, then are tested, then are replaced by hypotheses with superior predictive and explanatory power. Of course, if that is what you are arguing, that ID is an inferior hypothesis, then it still shouldn't be taught in science classes, except as such.

But the point is that Stanton is right. ID never made any testable predictions. ID never was science in the first place. ID has not been falsified simply because it makes no predictions. Face it, the best you can hope for is that science gets redefined to include things like ID. And of course, even if it did, it would still be an inferior hypothesis, as you yourself pointed out.

Stanton: Wrong. The reason why I reject Intelligent Design is not because it is religious, but BECAUSE IT HAS NO EXPLANATORY POWER WHATSOEVER. Ever since Modern Science was invented, the only way a person could replace a currently used theory was to come up with and test a hypothesis that explained everything that the current theory explains, as well as explain things that the current theory could not.

Well, I guess we can all claim some credit for forcing FL to at least TRY to sound intelligent. Unfortunetely, it's all just more of the same with more and fancier words shovelled on top...

Well said, but you need to say “too complex and specified in terms of information to have evolved on its own.”

You still haven't defined "information," or described exactly how to quantify it, or how to measure the quantity of "information" in a given molecular system. Your "definition" is based entirely on a concept you refuse to define, therefore it doesn't really define anything at all.

THAT’s what ID is saying, and one has to accurately represent the ID hypothesis prior to criticizing it.

And as long as ID keeps its terms as vague and inexact as possible, it will always be able to avoid criticism. Or so the ID movement like to think.

If we go by the scientific method, a hypothesis CAN in fact be scientific, even if it comes in second best to a superior scientific hypothesis.

So you're admitting that ID is "second best" compared to evolution, and that evolution is the "superior scientific hypothesis?"

In particular, the concept of intelligent design predicts that complex information, such as that encoded in a functioning genome, never arises from purely chemical or physical antecedents.

As we've all been saying for years, "complex information" has still not been defined or quantified, and cannot be measured, therefore this "prediction" is just plain empty, therefore ID makes no actual predictions and is as bogus as astrology.

(Here's a question you IDers have been dodging for some time now: when liquid water freezes into the very orderly -- and sometimes intricate, fascinating and beautiful -- crystal patterns known as "snow," "frost" and "ice," where does all that "complex information" we see in the crystal structure come from? Surely not from "purely chemical or physical antecedents," eh?)

So you see, FL, you've added a lot of words and quotes, but you still have absolutely NOTHING in the way of a testable hypothesis. Do you really think you're fooling us? Or are you just trying to reassure yourself?

So no statement about abiogenesis has any bearing on the theory of evolution.

...Organic molecules evolved by natural selection, ultimately giving rise to life--possibly in the "warm little pond" that Darwin envisioned in his famous letter to Joseph Hooker. ---John Oro, in Wm. Schopf's "Life's Origins" (2002)

We can conclude that the different forms of life are not the result of a process having a determined finality developed a priori by a creative plan, nor are they the result of a chance fortuitous act. Life emerged as the result of natural evolutionary processes, as a new form of movement of matter during its process of developement. ---Oparin, quoted in Schopf 2002

(Here’s a question you IDers have been dodging for some time now: when liquid water freezes into the very orderly – and sometimes intricate, fascinating and beautiful – crystal patterns known as “snow,” “frost” and “ice,” where does all that “complex information” we see in the crystal structure come from? Surely not from “purely chemical or physical antecedents,” eh?)

FL;
1) Please explain why a complete and total understanding of abiogenesis is required to observe and understand evolutionary trends in known lineages of organisms, including fungi, orchids, ferns, daisies, wheat, cattle, sheep, horses, brontotheres, clams, snails, oysters, parrots, tulips, and bacteria?
and
2) Why do you persist in refusing to demonstrate the alleged predictive and explanatory powers of Intelligent Design?

But what I’m interested in, and what seems totally unsubstantiated after much arguing in other places, is this claim that Dr. Ratzsch’s statement leads to (3). (I think the first two items are completely wrong also, but the media and courtroom wars tend to focus primarily on the issue of “3”, so that would be my first priority as well.) How does Ratzsch’s statement RATIONALLY lead to (3)? Where’s the evidence that it does?

In other words, I do NOT have to show that ID is a “better hypothesis” than evolution in order to show that ID is scientific If we go by the scientific method, a hypothesis CAN in fact be scientific, even if it comes in second best to a superior scientific hypothesis. (Wouldn’t you agree?)

PvM says that "what remains after regularity and chance processes have been eliminated must be supernatural or the empty set."

And yet, in the scientific arena of Origin of Life, we have all seen (in the "Florida" thread) an outstanding Orgel and Crick example, quoted straight from Freeman and Herron's 2004 evolutionary biology textbook, of how "the supernatural" and "the empty set" are NOT the only rational choices available once you eliminate regularity and chance processes.

You DO in fact have a published plausible non-supernatural possibility regarding the intelligent causative agent.

Therefore you have to honestly admit that Ratzsch's statement in fact does NOT lead to your claim of (3)---that is, does NOT lead to the 3-point ID hypothesis being "religion" or "religious concept".

Also, When you say "a gaps approach chosen by ID", you are clearly in disagreement with Dr. Ratzsch.
Gap objections against ID, Ratzsch wrote, are mistaken on all counts--- conceptual, logical, empirical, historical.

Now, when you take all THAT together, you get a clear and rational conclusion that ID is non-religious. You gotta admit upfront to that, no?

******

Footnote: Even now, I suspect that some of you evolutionists are praying (to whatever!) that Judge Jones' decision never gets reviewed or re-considered in ANY other court of law regarding the religion angle, because you know there'll be Hell To Pay regarding Jones' erroneous statements!!

FL

PvM says that “what remains after regularity and chance processes have been eliminated must be supernatural or the empty set.” And yet, in the scientific arena of Origin of Life, we have all seen (in the “Florida” thread) an outstanding Orgel and Crick example, quoted straight from Freeman and Herron’s 2004 evolutionary biology textbook, of how “the supernatural” and “the empty set” are NOT the only rational choices available once you eliminate regularity and chance processes.

“Finally, Crick and Orgel (1973) suggest a third possibility, which they call directed panspermia. Earth’s founding microbes were sent here intentionally, aboard a spacecraft, by intelligent extraterrestrials bent on seeding the galaxy with life. Crick and Orgel argue that, within the foreseeable future, it will probably be possible for us to launch such a mission. Therefore, it is at least conceivable that some other civilization actually did so 4 billion years ago.” Drs. Scott Freeman & Jon Herron, Evolutionary Analysis 3rd Edition, 2004, pg 629.

You DO in fact have a published plausible non-supernatural possibility regarding the intelligent causative agent.

Therefore you have to honestly admit that Ratzsch’s statement in fact does NOT lead to your claim of (3)—that is, does NOT lead to the 3-point ID hypothesis being “religion” or “religious concept”.

Also, When you say “a gaps approach chosen by ID”, you are clearly in disagreement with Dr. Ratzsch. Gap objections against ID, Ratzsch wrote, are mistaken on all counts— conceptual, logical, empirical, historical.

Now, when you take all THAT together, you get a clear and rational conclusion that ID is non-religious. You gotta admit upfront to that, no?

Footnote: Even now, I suspect that some of you evolutionists are praying (to whatever!) that Judge Jones’ decision never gets reviewed or re-considered in ANY other court of law regarding the religion angle, because you know there’ll be Hell To Pay regarding Jones’ erroneous statements!!

FL--
I'm not getting through, so why don't you go up to Stanton's post and read his first question about a hundred times until you understand it?

I'm not surprised that biology textbooks mention the origin of life. I'll bet they also mention that Darwin sailed on the Beagle. That doesn't make celestial navigation part of the theory of evolution. Call abiogenesis "pre-biotic evolution" if you want, but it simply has no bearing on the reality of POST-biotic evolution.

And, as long as we're on the subject of books that start with origins, may I point out that most Christians don't feel the need to take the first chapter of Genesis literally in order to believe in the New Testament? In your mind, it may be all or nothing, but most people's minds just don't work that way-- whether they're evolutionary biologists or mainstream Christians. (Or, as thousands of people are, both.)

FL,

I'm not at all worried about the Jones decision being overturned. After all, the defendants were trapped in their own lies when they tried to claim that their motivations were not religious. They were shown to be lying under oath, some Christians. They never had a chance and they never will.

But you should be worried that the Supreme Court will rule on the issue before the fundies a clear majority. If that happens, the consititution will protect our classrooms from religious fanatics and ID as a political movement will die once and for all.

Even if the Supreme Court does ever rule that ID is science, it still won't be real science and even if it somehow could be, it will never be good science. It will still be rejected by all real scientists and it still won't make any predictions or have any evidence in favor of it. And no matter what, it will never, ever have more explanatory or predictive power than MET. Why in the world would you want scch nonsense taught in public schools as if it were science, if not for religious motivation?

The principal characteristic of intelligent causation is directed contingency, or what we call choice. Whenever an intelligent cause acts, it chooses from a range of competing possibilities. This is true not just of humans, but of animals as well as extra-terrestrial intelligences

The contingency must conform to an independently given pattern, and we must be able independently to formulate that pattern.

I repeat with more emphasis to FL: FL; 1) Please explain why a complete and total understanding of abiogenesis is required to observe and understand evolutionary trends in known lineages of organisms, including fungi, orchids, ferns, daisies, wheat, cattle, sheep, horses, brontotheres, clams, snails, oysters, parrots, tulips, and bacteria? and 2) Why do you persist in refusing to demonstrate the alleged predictive and explanatory powers of Intelligent Design?

FL wrote:

"The principal characteristic of intelligent causation is directed contingency, or what we call choice."

OK. So now all you have to do is show that some "complex specified" system evolved before there was any selective pressure involved. In others words, what example can you give of some feature of life that evolved prior to the environment in which it was favored? Who made the choice? How did they know what the future needs of the organism would be? Why did they want the organism to survive? Be aware that humans have not shown much foresight in this area, even in regards to their own evolution. And, oh yea, God can't possibly be the answer, since ID is certainly not religious. Besides why would God want bacteria to evolve flagella or antibiotic resistance, especially before they needed them?

And remember, it is not enough for the variation to arise before the environment changes. That is what is predicted by MET. What you need to do is find the intelligent agent responsible and determine the motives and mechanisms involved. You know, all that stuff ID tries so hard to avoid. What was directed? When? Why? Remember, there is good evidence that mutations are not directed, so what was? How? By who?

The point is that the living organisms we see around us today are adequately explained by historical contingency, not directed contingency. That is why we can construct the tree of life. That is why we fincd a nested hierarchy in the genetic data. Once again, your idea falls short of what is already known.

the snowflake does NOT display specification

Very briefly: the snowflake displays complexity, yes, intricate order, yes – but the snowflake does NOT display specification,

— FL

If we consider a piece of glass divided into tiny cells, and each cell either can or cannot be covered by a molecule of water with equal probability, it seems likely even in the absence of a formal calculation that the probability that the resulting figure will have the symmetry observed in ice crystals is vanishingly small. Furthermore, the symmetry seems a legitimate specification, at least as good as specifications such as “outboard rotary motor” that Dembski himself advances. Yet in addressing this claim Dembski falls back on the causal history interpretation, stating that “...such shapes form as a matter of physical necessity simply in virtue of the properties of water (the filter will assign the crystals to necessity and not to design).”

Even now, I suspect that some of you evolutionists are praying (to whatever!) that Judge Jones’ decision never gets reviewed or re-considered in ANY other court of law regarding the religion angle, because you know there’ll be Hell To Pay regarding Jones’ erroneous statements!!

Yea right. The one example where the defendants were proven to be lying under oath in order to cover up their true religious motivations. Yea, I'm really scared that decision will be overturned.

Anyway, it doesn't matter. No court decision will ever make ID science and even if it is declared to be science it will never be good science and even if it somehow ever manages to really be science it will never have the predictive or explanatory power of modern evolutionary theory. Scientifically it is completely and utterly meaningless and everyone knows it. Why not do some real science instead of whining about Judge Jones?

Therefore, blue is the set theoretic complement of red and green, and everything that isn’t red or green, is blue. Therefore, lemons, canaries and oranges are all blue.

...but the snowflake does NOT display specification...

"Specification" -- another undefined, unquantifiable concept you hide behind in your desperate haste to pretend your narrow religion can be supported by science. Your failure to provide even a thumbnail definition of "specification" proves your arguments are hollow, and you know it.

I notice you tried to talk a good talk about "complex information;" then, when I pointed out that a snowflake has "complex information," you dropped that buzz-phrase and substituted another -- "specification." That's all ID is, really: an ongoing shell-game of misleading buzzwords substituting for actual content. ("Cdesign proponentsists," anyone?)

And no, FL, abiogenisis is NOT evolution. They're not the same subjects, even though they're both addressed by the same scientists. Just like quantum mechanics and general relativity are not the same subjects, even though they're addressed by the same scientists.

Torbjorn pointed out that astrology fails to “make individual predictions.” So we all scratch off astrology as science.

Experience will show that only intelligent agency gives rise to functional information.

No time for me to google things for you.

Yeah, right, you have plenty of time to repeat the same nonsense and outright lies, in post after post, at least since 2005; but you suddenly don't have time to back any of your BS up. Just like all the other ID "scientists" who are too busy doing PR to ever get around to doing any actual scientific work, or even respond to a call-for-papers.

A strange sort of "science" you do, FL -- so much busy-ness, and no actual accomplishments.

Experience will show that only intelligent agency gives rise to functional information.

FL wrote:

"Experience will show that only intelligent agency gives rise to functional information."

Experience will also show that the earth is flat and that the sun goes round the earth. That is why experience is not a valid criteria for scientific conclusions. Indeed, personal experience is never accepted as evidence of anything in science. That is why we do controlled experimentas that are repeatable. That is why we don't just jump at the first answer that seems to make intuitive sense and declare it to be right.

In this case, how would one distinguish between a favorable variant that arose by random mutation, then survived selection and became fixed versus the exact same mutation that was poofed into every organism? The outcome would be identical, except in the former case there are known observable processes that can account for the observations, in the latter case you just have to believe in magic. The history of science shows us that the latter approach is neither constructive nor instructive, while the former has given us modern evolutionary theory.

Experience also shows that people who say stuff like this really don't understand how science works at all. If you think that the experience argument is valid, please be advised that my experiences are quite different from yours.

Experience will also show that the earth is flat and that the sun goes round the earth. That is why experience is not a valid criteria for scientific conclusions.